FundMECFSResearch

tudu tudutudutudu

Those mfs were eating better than me.

Thanks for the attempt but your calculation is wrong, as it considers distance only on a one axis and not a two axis plane. With your circle assumption, mercury would be further than the sun on average.

I wonder if anyone has the data without the circle assumption, and also correcting for the various other complexities.

I mean would the planets be closer to mercury or the sun on average

What about if you add the sun into the equation?

That’s actually amish talk “buggy whip”

Bye bye google, hello duckduckgo or SearXNG.

Google pays reddit to show their results in priority.

In real life if I give people my academic title they’ll trust me more than the random person who is arguing with me about basic facts in my field of expertise. For some reason, not on reddit though

Yeah it is really frustrating to try and educate the reddit hivemind about your field of expertise.

They like things that sound good and plausible and fit their biases, not necessarily where the scientific consensus points to.

This is about newspaper articles. But agree with what you say.

Here’s how it was originally described:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

^